IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

FAO-4907-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 06.11.2025 ****

The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala ..... Appellant Versus M/s Shree Sai Facilities ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Senior Panel Counsel, for the appellant.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate &

Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate, for the respondent.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

CM-21157-CII-2025 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the affidavit of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arbitration Act’) assailing the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala while deciding the application under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MSMED Act’) read with Section 34 of the Arbitration Act vide which the objections were dismissed on the ground of delay.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant, which is the Railway Department of Government of India had filed the objections before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala under Section 19 of the MSMED Act and Section 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award dated 21.08.2024 which was passed against it. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala has dismissed the objections on the ground of delay since the objections were not filed within the prescribed statutory period of 3 months+30 days.

3. While giving the dates which are relevant in the present case, he submitted that the award was passed on 21.08.2024 which was received by the appellant on 02.09.2024. The objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 22.01.2025 which is a total period of 142 days and in this way there has been a delay of 52 days in total and if it is to be counted after adding the aforesaid 30 days beyond 3 months, then it comes out to be 22 days but in any case, the date on which the objections were filed exceeded 3 months+30 days because the total delay was of 142 days. He further submitted that as per the affidavit filed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 28.08.2025, the reason for delay in filing the aforesaid objections has been stated. It has been so stated in the said affidavit that several departments and units are involved in taking the decision and evaluating the files and because of that along with festival rush duties and other than routine work, the delay has occurred which was unintentional and the same was only because of genuine, administrative and procedural requirements that the delay has occurred in filing of the objections.

Therefore, the objections could not have been dismissed only on the ground of delay because sufficient cause was shown.

4. He also submitted that the objections were filed not only under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act but also under Section 19 of the MSMED Act and therefore, the objections could not have been dismissed only on the ground of delay because it could have been considered only under Section

19 of the MSMED Act which does not provide for any limitation period.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent assisted by Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate & Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate, has submitted that the law with regard to the condonation of delay in filing the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is no longer res integra. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Ma